Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
The High Court held that the co-insurance premium and reinsurance commission would not be considered as supply and thus, the petitioners are entitled to a refund. The amounts deposited by the petitioner were not towards discharge of tax liability, but merely deposits pursuant to the court's order pending final adjudication. Since the utilization of these amounts for tax payment was deferred, they do not fall under the exclusions from refund under Schedule III of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the petitions allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
